Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This article systematically analyses comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus standard PCNL. METHODS: The Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane and DARE databases were searched from 1997 to February 2011. Comparative studies evaluating outcomes from standard versus tubeless PCNL were included. Primary outcome measures were post-operative pain scoring, analgesic requirements, duration of hospitalisation/convalescence, operation time, major/minor complications and stone-free rates. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included (11 randomised control trials and 13 retrospective or prospective studies). Levels of pain recorded, analgesic requirements, duration of inpatient stay and convalescence time were all significantly reduced in the tubeless PCNL group. Cost was reduced in two studies. Morbidity was not significantly different between the groups. There was no significant difference between groups regarding stone-free status. DISCUSSION: This systematic review has demonstrated that tubeless PCNL is a viable alternative to tubed PCNL in uncomplicated cases. Benefits are as described above. There is no evidence suggesting that patient safety is compromised by the absence of post-operative nephrostomy. The tubeless method has been reported in challenging cases such as stag-horn stones, horseshoe or ectopic kidneys. Promising outcomes have been demonstrated in elderly patients and when clinical needs demand a supracostal approach. Multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to fully establish the effectiveness of the tubeless method.

Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis.

PURPOSE: While percutaneous nephrostolithotomy is the standard of care for renal stones greater than 2 cm, recent studies have shown that staged ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy may be a reasonable option. Stones 2 to 3 cm may be amenable to ureteroscopy as well as to 1-stage treatment based on their intermediate size. We compared clinical outcomes and the estimated cost of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy vs ureteroscopy for 2 to 3 cm renal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and ureteroscopy at our institution from 2004 to 2008 with a maximal renal stone diameter of 2 to 3 cm. Demographic information, disease characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative data, and complications were recorded. Stone clearance was reported as a residual stone burden of 0 to 2 mm and less than 4 mm. Cost was estimated using local Medicare reimbursements for surgeon, anesthesia, hospital and outpatient services. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients underwent percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and 19 underwent ureteroscopy for 2 to 3 cm renal stones. The estimated cost of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy was significantly greater than that of ureteroscopy ($19,845 vs $6,675, p <0.0001). There were significantly more second stage procedures among percutaneous nephrostolithotomy cases (11 vs 1, p = 0.003). Stone clearance (0 to 2 mm) was superior for percutaneous nephrostolithotomy vs ureteroscopy (89% vs 47%, p = 0.01). Using a less than 4 mm threshold stone clearance improved to 100% vs 95% (p not significant). Two patients (10.5%) with ureteroscopy required subsequent ipsilateral stone surgery. They were noncompliant with medical/dietary therapy or radiographic surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: While percutaneous nephrostolithotomy achieves superior stone clearance, ureteroscopy achieves acceptable treatment outcomes with a low risk of subsequent stone related events or interventions. The lower relative cost of ureteroscopy in this population may have implications for the development of treatment guidelines.

[Current aspects of stone therapy]. / Aktuelle Aspekte der Steintherapie.

More than 30 % of all admissions to an urologic clinic are for the treatment of urinary stones. In almost all cases, the treatment is minimally invasive employing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Technical advances in endourology and a growing expertise in ESWL led to a decline in ESWL and an increase in endoscopic techniques. In comparison with ESWL, the endoscopic techniques are more invasive but in most cases achieve a stone free state faster. With the introduction of diagnosis related groups (DRG), the economic aspect of stone therapy is gaining in importance. Stone prevention leads to a cost reduction in the health care system, justifying the use of an appropriate stone metaphylaxis. This review article presents the current recommendations for interventional urinary stone therapy and lists the options of conducting both medical and economically rational therapy.

Comparative costs of the various strategies of urinary stone disease management.

New technology is a major determinant of total healthcare costs. The assessment of alternative technologies from a cost-effectiveness perspective is important, although other considerations may finally determine which technology is used. The alternatives of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of renal stone disease were compared by studying 1000 cases of ESWL and 133 cases of PCNL using a noncontemporaneous cohort study with PCNL representing the earlier cohort. The effectiveness, defined by success and stone-free rates, was higher with PCNL than with ESWL (96% success vs. 70%); PCNL was also accompanied by a lower burden of additional therapy, whereas ESWL had a higher retreatment rate. From the perspective of a third-party payer, total costs per case of ESWL ($2,746) were lower than those of PCNL ($4,087), but the figure varies with the annual volume. These represent the costs for complete treatment of a patient, including the costs of alternative technology such as PCNL or ureteroscopy that may ultimately be necessary in a patient initially managed by ESWL. The cost for a single ESWL treatment was $2,226 (at a volume of 1000 cases per year), but this increased to $2,746 when costs of retreatment and alternative treatment were prorated to each patient treated. The relative contribution of capital costs to the total cost of ESWL was always less than total professional fees and was only 12% at a volume of 2000 cases/year. Therefore ESWL is less expensive but it is also less effective in rendering patients stone-free.

Relative costs and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and ureteric stones.

This paper presents empirical data from the United Kingdom National Health Service on the comparative mean hospital costs per patient of first generation extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) in the treatment of kidney stones. These results were subjected to a sensitivity analysis and related to evidence on the health effects of the two approaches to treatment. The hospital costs of PCN were found to be lower than for ESWL in the empirical comparison and in most but not all the scenarios developed in the sensitivity analysis. The direction of the comparison was reversed when a high throughput was assumed for ESWL and a significantly higher per diem cost for PCN than ESWL. The relative cost-effectiveness of the two modes of treatment depended on whether successful treatment was defined in terms of rendering the patient free of stones (the traditional endpoint of treatment) or the rate at which patients returned to their normal activities.

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy is highly effective for the removal of renal calculi. However, significant morbidity has been associated with this procedure. Consequently, many urologists inappropriately defer to a less effective procedure to reduce patient morbidity. This practice may increase the total number of procedures needed for treatment and result in a substantial increase in health care costs. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy using a 13F ureteroscopy sheath is described to reduce the morbidity associated with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy while maintaining its efficiency and effectiveness for stone removal. The indications and technique for mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and our results are summarized.

RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting.

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcome and the cost-effectiveness between retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL) for the management of single renal stone of 2-3 cm in Chinese medical setting. From May 2005 to February 2011, 115 patients with solitary renal calculi were treated either by RIRS or mPCNL. 56 patients were in RIRS group while 59 were in mPCNL group. Patients' demographics between the two groups, in terms of gender, age, BMI, history of ESWL as well as stone side, stone location and stone size were comparable. Peri-operative course, clinical outcome, complication rates and medical cost were compared. The effective quotient (EQ) of two groups was calculated. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Chi-square test and Student's t test. EQ for RIRS and mPCNL were 0.52 and 0.90. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) of RIRS group and mPCNL group was 71.4 and 96.6 %, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean procedure number was 1.18 in RIRS group and 1.03 in mPCNL group, respectively (P = 0.035). The operative time for RIRS was longer (P = 0.000) while the mean hospital stay was shorter (P = 0.000). There was no statistical difference in peri-operative complications between the groups. The initial hospitalization cost, laboratory and radiology test cost of RIRS group were lower (P = 0.000). However, counting the retreatment cost in the two groups, the total medical expenditure including the overall hospitalization cost, overall laboratory and radiology test cost and post-operative out-patient department (OPD) visit cost was similar between two groups. In conclusion, with similar total medical cost, mPCNL achieved faster stone clearance and lower retreatment rate without major complications, which implied higher cost-effectiveness for the treatment of single renal stone of 2-3 cm in Chinese medical setting. RIRS is also a safe and reliable choice for patients having contraindications or preference against mPCNL.